Archive | Russia

Russians Spooked by Nukes-Against-Cyber-Attack Policy


Image result for ussr flag

By Ray McGovern and William Binney | Consortium News 

Moscow is showing understandable concern over the lowering of the threshold for employing nuclear weapons to include retaliation for cyber-attacks, a change announced on Feb. 2 in the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).

Explaining the shift in U.S. doctrine on first-use, the NPR cites the efforts of potential adversaries “to design and use cyber weapons” and explains the change as a “hedge” against non-nuclear threats. In response, Russia described the move as an “attempt to shift onto others one’s own responsibility” for the deteriorating security situation.

Moscow’s concern goes beyond rhetoric. Cyber-attacks are notoriously difficult to trace to the actual perpetrator and can be pinned easily on others in what we call “false-flag” operations. These can be highly destabilizing – not only in the strategic context, but in the political arena as well.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has good reason to believe he has been the target of a false-flag attack of the political genre. We judged this to be the case a year and a half ago, and said so. Our judgment was fortified last summer – thanks to forensic evidence challenging accusations that the Russians hacked into the Democratic National Committee and provided emails to WikiLeaks. (Curiously, the FBI declined to do forensics, even though the “Russian hack” was being described as an “act of war.”)

Our conclusions were based on work conducted over several months by highly experienced technical specialists, including another former NSA technical director (besides co-author Binney) and experts from outside the circle of intelligence analysts.

On August 9, 2017, investigative reporter Patrick Lawrence summed up our findings in The Nation. “They have all argued that the hack theory is wrong and that a locally executed leak is the far more likely explanation,” he explained.

As we wrote in an open letter to Barack Obama dated January 17, three days before he left office, the NSA’s programs are fully capable of capturing all electronic transfers of data. “We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks,” our letter said. “If NSA cannot produce such evidence – and quickly – this would probably mean it does not have any.”

A ‘Dot’ Pointing to a False Flag?

In his article, Lawrence included mention of one key, previously unknown “dot” revealed by WikiLeaks on March 31, 2017. When connected with other dots, it puts a huge dent in the dominant narrative about Russian hacking. Small wonder that the mainstream media immediately applied white-out to the offending dot.

Lawrence, however, let the dot out of the bag, so to speak: “The list of the CIA’s cyber-tools WikiLeaks began to release in March and labeled Vault 7 includes one called Marble Framework that is capable of obfuscating the origin of documents in false-flag operations and leaving markings that point to whatever the CIA wants to point to.”

If congressional oversight committees summon the courage to look into “Obfus-Gate” and Marble, they are likely to find this line of inquiry as lucrative as the Steele “dossier.” In fact, they are likely to find the same dramatis personae playing leading roles in both productions.

Two Surprising Visits

Last October CIA Director Mike Pompeo invited one of us (Binney) into his office to discuss Russian hacking. Binney told Pompeo his analysts had lied and that he could prove it.

In retrospect, the Pompeo-Binney meeting appears to have been a shot across the bow of those cyber warriors in the CIA, FBI, and NSA with the means and incentive to adduce “just discovered” evidence of Russian hacking. That Pompeo could promptly invite Binney back to evaluate any such “evidence” would be seen as a strong deterrent to that kind of operation.

Pompeo’s closeness to President Donald Trump is probably why the heads of Russia’s three top intelligence agencies paid Pompeo an unprecedented visit in late January. We think it likely that the proximate cause was the strategic danger Moscow sees in the nuclear-hedge-against-cyber-attack provision of the Nuclear Posture Statement (a draft of which had been leaked a few weeks before).

If so, the discussion presumably focused on enhancing hot-line and other fail-safe arrangements to reduce the possibility of false-flag attacks in the strategic arena — by anyone – given the extremely high stakes.

Putin may have told his intelligence chiefs to pick up on President Donald Trump’s suggestion, after the two met last July, to establish a U.S.-Russian cyber security unit. That proposal was widely ridiculed at the time. It may make good sense now.

Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years, was chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and briefed the President’s Daily Brief one-on-one from 1981-1985. William Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

Posted in Russia0 Comments

Russia: Legacy of 1968 protests how a leftist revolution helped capitalists win

By: Slavoj Žižek
Legacy of 1968 protests: How a leftist revolution helped capitalists win
The May 1968 protest movement changed the western world. Now, almost 50 years later, it’s clear a supposedly leftist movement ultimately helped capitalism to dominate.

Although an immense abyss separates the social revolution of the 1960s from today’s protests, we are witnessing a similar re-appropriation of the energy of revolt by the capitalist system.

One of the well-known graffiti slogans on the Paris walls of ‘68 was: “structures do not walk on the streets,” meaning one couldn’t explain the large student and workers demonstrations of ’68 in the terms of structuralism. And this is why some historians even posit 1968 as a date that separates structuralism from post-structuralism which was, so the story goes, much more dynamic and prone to active political interventions.

The French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan’s answer was that this, precisely, is what happened in 1968: structures DID descend onto the streets – the visible explosive events were ultimately the result of a structural shift in the basic social and symbolic texture of modern Europe.

© Lucy Nicholson

Light My Fire

The consequences of the ‘68 explosion prove him right. What effectively happened in the aftermath of the ‘68 was the rise of a new figure of the “spirit of capitalism.” Indeed, the system abandoned the Fordist centralized structure of the production process and developed a network-based form of organization founded on employee initiative and autonomy in the workplace.

Thus, instead of hierarchical-centralized chains of command, we now have networks with a multitude of participants, organizing work in the form of teams or projects. Which are intent on customer satisfaction, and a general mobilization of workers thanks to their leaders’ vision. This new “spirit of capitalism” triumphantly recuperated the egalitarian and anti-hierarchical rhetoric of 1968, presenting itself as a successful libertarian revolt against the oppressive social organizations of corporate capitalism AND “really-existing” socialism.

The two phases of this new “cultural capitalism” are clearly discernible in the stylistic changes within advertising. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was the direct reference to personal authenticity or the quality of experience that predominated, while later, one can note more and more the mobilization of socio-ideological motifs (such as ecology and social solidarity). In fact, the experience referred to is the experience of being part of a larger collective movement, of caring for nature and the welfare of the ill, poor and deprived, and of doing something for them.

January 26, 2018, Davos, eastern Switzerland. © MIGUEL MEDINA

Helping Hands?

For instance, here is a case of this “ethical capitalism” brought to the extreme: Toms Shoes, a company founded in 2006 on a premise: with every pair you purchase, TOMS will give a pair of new shoes to a child in need. “One for One.” Using the purchasing power of individuals to benefit the greater good is what we’re all about.

Because among the planet’s 7.6 billion people, four billion live in conditions inconceivable to many at the top of the tree. But now the sin of consumerism (buying a new pair of shoes) can be atoned for and thereby erased by the awareness that one of those who really needs shoes received another pair free of charge. Meaning the very act of participating in consumerist activities is simultaneously presented as participating in the struggle against the evils ultimately caused by capitalist consumerism.

In a similar way, many other aspects of ‘68 were successfully integrated into the hegemonic capitalist ideology and are today mobilized not only by liberals, but also by contemporary Right, in their struggle against any form of “socialism.” For example, “freedom of choice” is used as an argument for the benefits of precarious work. So, forget the anxieties of not being sure how you will survive the next few years and focus instead on the fact that you gain the freedom to “reinvent” yourself again and again, to avoid being stuck to the same monotonous work.

© Eric Gaillard

Utter Upheaval

The 1968 protest focused its struggle against (what were perceived as) the three pillars of capitalism: factory, school and family. As a result, each domain was submitted to post-industrial transformation. Leading to factory-work becoming more and more outsourced or, in the developed world, reorganized along the post-Fordist non-hierarchical interactive team-work. Meanwhile, permanent flexible privatized education is more and more replacing universal public education and multiple forms of flexible sexual arrangements are replacing the traditional family.

At the same time, the Left lost in its very victory: the direct enemy was defeated, but replaced by a new form of even more direct capitalist domination. In “postmodern” capitalism, the market is invading new spheres which were hitherto considered the privileged domain of the state, from education to prisons and security.

When “immaterial work” (like education) is celebrated as the labor which directly produces social relations, one should not forget what this means within a commodity-economy. That new domains, hitherto excluded from the market, are now commodified. So, when in trouble, we no longer talk to a friend but pay a psychiatrist or councilor to take care of the problem. And instead of parents, paid baby-sitters and educators take care of children.

Heavy Burden

One should, of course, not forget the real achievements of ‘68. The movement opened up a radical change in how we treat women’s rights, homosexuality and racism. After the glorious 60s, we simply cannot engage in public racism and homophobia the way we still could in the 1950s. Thus, ‘68 was not a single event but an ambiguous one in which different political tendencies were combined: this is why it also remained a thorn in the heel of many conservatives.

Nicholas Sarkozy admitted it when he said in his electoral campaign in 2007 that his great task was to make France finally get over ‘68. One should, of course, not miss the irony of this remark: the fact that Sarkozy, with his clownish outbursts and marriage to Carla Bruni, can be the French President is in itself one of the outcomes of the changes in customs brought about by May ‘68.

So we have the legacy of “their” May ‘68 and “our” May ‘68. In today’s predominant collective memory, “our” basic idea of the May demonstrations in Paris and the link between student protests and worker’s strikes, is forgotten. The true legacy of ‘68 resides in its rejection of the liberal-capitalist system, in a NO to the totality of it best encapsulated in the formula: Soyons realistes, demandons l’impossible!

The true utopia is the belief that the existing global system can reproduce itself indefinitely and that the only way to be truly “realist” is to endorse what, within the coordinates of this system, cannot but appear as impossible. The fidelity to May ‘68 is thus best expressed by the question: how are we to prepare for this radical change and to lay the foundations for it?

Posted in Russia0 Comments

U.S. Drone Destroys Russian T-72 Battle Tank in ‘Self-Defense’ Strike in Syria

U.S. officials confirmed on Tuesday that an American MQ-9 Reaper drone destroyed a Russian-made T-72 battle tank in Syria on Sunday, after U.S. special operations troops and their Syrian allies came under attack by forces supporting Bashar Assad.

“The tank had been maneuvering with coordinated indirect fire on a defensive position occupied by Syrian Democratic Forces and Coalition advisers. The defensive position was within effective range of the tank’s weapon system,” said a statement from the U.S. Central Command quoted by Fox News.

“Coalition officials maintained regular contact with Russian counterparts via established de-confliction lines to avoid misperceptions and miscalculations that could endanger each other’s forces,” the statement added. The three-man crew was reportedly killed in the drone strike, while the U.S. coalition suffered no casualties.

NBC News quotes coalition spokesman Col. Ryan Dillon explaining that the tank itself was not firing on U.S. and SDF forces, but was part of a formation in which “other elements” were firing. The attackers were reportedly using mortars and small arms in an effort to push the Syrian Democratic Forces back from a position near al-Tabiyeh in eastern Syria. Their strategic objective may have been securing a nearby oil field.

According to Central Command, the pro-regime forces involved in Sunday’s incident were from the same group that attacked U.S. special operators and Syrian fighters on February 7 and 8.

It was eventually revealed that Russian military contractors were mixed in with the Assad regime’s allies in that attack, and a number of them were killed.

The Russians claim a handful of Russian “paramilitary contractors” were killed in the battle, while the Syrian government says U.S. troops and their allies killed almost a hundred Russians. CNN identified several of the slain Russians on Tuesday; they were portrayed as a mixture of mercenaries and “ultranationalists.”

CBS News notes that whatever their motivations for fighting in Syria, the casualties from last week’s battle constitute the first Russians killed by U.S. airstrikes in Syria. CBS also notes the interesting fact that some Turkish forces were present at the SDF headquarters alongside the Americans, even as tensions between the U.S. and Turkey are mounting near the Turkish border.

“The Kremlin – seeking to play down its involvement in the fighting in Syria and seemingly hoping to avoid escalating tensions with the United States – has sidestepped questions about the episode,” the New York Times wrote of Sunday’s drone strike on a Russian-made tank.

“It was self-defense. Obviously, we are not getting engaged in the Syrian civil war,” Secretary of Defense James Mattis said of the U.S. strikes over the weekend.

Mattis said the Russians told American officials there were no Russian forces involved in the attack, even though Russians have now been discovered among the dead. He described the entire situation around al-Tabiyeh “perplexing” and said he could see no reason for the Assad regime’s attack on the SDF headquarters.

Posted in USA, Russia, Syria0 Comments

A Russian Trump?


Do you remember the terrible onslaught of the mainstream media on presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2016? Dozens of revelations about his fake hair, pussy grabbing, tax avoidance and what not; dozens of public polls proving that the nation wanted Hillary and hated Trump, opinion pieces convincing you that only racist white trash could think of voting for him. They even printed that Time weekly (or was it Newsweek?) cover with a Madam President! greeting. And then came the day of counting.

This development comes to my mind as I follow the incessant attacks in the Russian media and social networks on presidential candidate Paul N. Grudinin (usually nicknamed Gru). Russian state-owned TV is supposed, by its charter, to play a neutral role in the election campaign. They did it for a week after his name was entered into the race. In that week’s time, Gru’s rating skyrocketed and almost reached that of President Putin. This was an unexpected turn of events for the Kremlin, whose political witch-doctors expected Gru to make a modest showing and to improve the doubtful legitimacy of the forthcoming elections.

When they recognised the magnitude of their mistake, they gave a command to their obedient TV channels, and Gru became the target of their daily attacks. Out of eight candidates, Gru is the only one who gets negative coverage. About him, they speak bad or nothing, just like about Trump in the US in his time.

A veteran candidate, the old Nationalist Zhirinovsky gets plenty of time on the TV, for he has only one message, Down with Gru. His wild attacks on Gru are broadcasted in every election campaign program every evening on the TV.

There is a spoiler, a tiny ‘Russian Communists’ Trotskyite party, whose only purpose in life is to steal votes from the mainstream Communist Party (KPRF). It is a virtual party that disappears after elections to come back to life before new elections. Some innocent souls in the Russian hinterland vote for them being convinced that this is theCommunist Party. They are violently anti-Gru, and post like mad in Facebook their denunciations of the not-quite-communist Gru.

However, Gru is not a run-of-the-mill communist candidate. A successful manager of an agricultural holding called Lenin Sovkhoz, he is a good example of Russian industrialists otherwise called ‘Red directors’, that is managers of Soviet factories and enterprises who adjusted to the new system. They are producers of goods for local consumption, and their interests do not coincide with those of the Putin (or Yeltsin) oligarchs. Those oligarchs made their fortunes by importing consumer goods and exporting raw materials; they are the base of Putin’s power.

The producers, both industrialists and agriculturalists, want more protectionist measures and cheaper credits, they want to boost the buying power of ordinary Russians, that is increase salaries and pensions. Their fortunes lie with the fortunes of the ordinary Russian workers. They are dissatisfied with President Putin, and even more with his government led by Mr Medvedev.

Gru became the candidate for a plethora of political organisations from the Left and from the Right; he is supported by Russian Nationalists, though his main alliance is with the KPRF (the mainstream Russian Communist Party). He is a combination of Sanders and Trump, for workers, against immigration, for protective trade barriers and low-cost credits for small producers. A self-made-man of the upper-middle class, not a billionaire, but definitely a wealthy man, he does not scare middle-class Russians who would be afraid to support a real red-in-tooth-and-claw Communist.

Though the official prediction grouop, the Russian Public Opinion Research Center, VTSIOM (ВЦИОМ) claims 70% of electorate will vote for Putin and only 7% for Grudinin, the feeling on the ground is very different. There are a few sites allowing people to express their preference by “voting”; a biggish site of this sort is this where out of 180,000 voters 60% preferred Gru, and only 30% voted for President Putin. On other sites, Gru gets anything from 30 to 80 per cent of the vote.

It is difficult to predict the result, and it is still over a month until election day, but VTSIOM’s assessment appears too low to justify the ferocious campaign against Gru. If he were about to get 6-7%, the top wheeler-dealer, the presidential administration, would not bother and would not activate its troll factories and fake social network accounts to stop Grudinin. It seems that man has a chance to win the battle, that is if the elections are reasonably fair.

Putin has been a good president, and a popular one, but he has his limitations. He still feels obliged to keep the Deal he made with the late President Yeltsin; he still keeps fighting the Soviet memory, he is surrounded by his buddies who roll in cash; he does not support local production except for the weapons industry. While he was good for a long while, there is a feeling that the country is ripe for a changing of the guard.

A teacher in the preparatory school may be wonderful, but sooner or later, the child should move on, to new teachers. Gru is the first man who has excited the Russians since 1996, and he is likely to make a strong bid.

The Russian Left is Different.

Grudinin has the support of the left and of the right; of workers and of managers; of communists and of nationalists. How could this happen? The main reason is that the Russian Left is quite different from the European Left. The Russians are Bolsheviks. The Western Left is predominantly Menshevik.

Historically, the Russian Social Democrats were divided into Bolsheviks, the Majorites, and Mensheviks, the Minorites. The actual argument that divided the Social Democrats into these majority and minority groups is of little importance now and of even less relevance. Nowadays, the Majorites are the Left for the Majority, while Minorites are the Left for Minorities.

The Russian Left is the force for the majority, for the workers, for the natives. The Western Left is for gender, ethnic, religious minorities. If you’d ask a Western worker about the Left, he will probably tell you: the Left is not for us, they care only for gays and migrants who take our jobs.

Mensheviks are (and were) better for Jews, as Jews are the ultimate minority. Bolsheviks accepted Jews as individuals and equals, not as a separate and preferred minority group. Bolsheviks fought against the Bund, the Jewish Social Democrats, while the Mensheviks joined with the Bund.

Stalin observed (and Trotsky quoted that in his book on Stalin):

“the majority of the Menshevik group were Jews. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the Bolshevik group were ethnic Russians. In this connection a Bolshevik observed in jest that the Mensheviks constituted a Jewish group while the Bolsheviks constituted a true-Russian group and, therefore, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for us Bolsheviks to organise a pogrom in the Party”.

While being comradely to Jewish comrades, Stalin effectively de-Jewified the Russian Communist Party by bringing in many ethnic Russian workers and peasants. He treated the Jews as just one of the tribes populating Eurasia, not as the Chosen Ones. This is the sin of Stalin in Jewish eyes, and that is why they condemn him now.

The Jewish influence in the Western Left has survived all these years and even outlived the massive Jewish involvement with the Left. After 1968, the Jews en masse departed to new pastures, but their influence lingered, entrenching the Jewish-friendly Menshevik tendency. They adapted the Western Left to fit their preferences and made it suitable for cohabitation with the elites. Along the way, they had lost their working class support, but they were more interested in keeping with the rulers.

The Jewish-run Mensheviks fit perfectly into the oligarchy. They believe that Anna and Susan Wojicki, the former wife of Sergei (“Google”) Brin and her sister, are unhappy discriminated women, unlike welders and auto mechanics, who are white men, the patriarchal lords of the world.

The Bolsheviks struggle for women’s equality is exemplified in free kindergartens, and the Mensheviks, in reserved places for women in the directorships of large companies.

Mensheviks are concerned about the rights of transgender people to a urinal of their preference. The Bolsheviks are concerned about the right of workers to work, to a decent wage, to their share of natural resources. You can easily understand what sort of Left is preferred in the eyes of mainstream media and their billionaire owners.

Migrants provide another cause of distinction. The Western working class achieved much during the years of the Cold War, when the Western ruling class had to compete with the Communists for workers’ loyalty. Now the rulers are eager to void these achievements – and the easiest way is through population replacement by the massive importation of migrants and refugees. For this purpose, Capital is waging wars in the Middle East and fanning strife in Africa, and they facilitate the refugees’ flight to Europe and America.

The Mensheviks, that is the Western Left, support migrants against the indigenous population, in the name of their anti-racism and internationalism. However, for all practical reasons they do the work for their masters, because migrants are easier to manipulate, they help to lower salaries, to undermine the workers’ organisations, and to destroy natural solidarity.

The Bolsheviks are against the causes of mass migration, against the use of migrants and refugees to the detriment of the indigenous population. This is the position of the Russian Communists, whose anti-migration rhetoric is so outspoken that even Trumpists would find it too brusque.

Mr Grudinin has a history of anti-immigration demands behind him. He calls for enforcing a visa regime with the Central Asian republics of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kirgizstan, as now their working migrants do not need a Russian visa. He insists that every working migrant should be given the same salary as a native Russian worker, the idea being that in such conditions there will be less demand for migrants’ labour. Perhaps it makes sense to hire inexperienced dirt-cheap Tajik migrants, but if for the same price you can hire a qualified Russian worker, you will probably employ the latter.

Grudinin’s suggestions are anathema to the neo-liberal Kremlin. Putin keeps the doors of Russia wide open for immigration, to the detriment of native workers. If the immigration flow has decreased it is mostly the result of Rouble’s depreciation.

In the West, these ideas of limiting migration belong fully to the realm of the Right, or even the Alt-Right. They are described as “populist”, meaning they are popular but disapproved by the ruling elites. The Western Left has been manipulated into an unpopular position, while the popular (‘populist’) ideas have been transferred to the Right.

In Russia, the Russian Communists did not follow the path of the Mensheviks. They made all sorts of compromises, but they always stayed for the workers. They do not fight for gays, migrants and upper-class feminists. They make allies with the producers and against the rentiers and bankers.

Perhaps the Russian Communists will show the way to their Western comrades as they did a hundred years ago. These two branches of the world Left movement have had a checkered history. In the 19th century, the new-born Russian revolutionary movement was keen to learn from the West; the Russian Narodniks went on a pilgrimage to visit Marx in London seeking his advice. The Western revolutionaries of that time (including Marx) were as distrustful of Russians as Robert Mueller or John McCain. They thought Russia was so backward and so reactionary that a Russian progressive Left was an impossibility.

And then something unexpected had happened. When the guns of the First World War struck, only the Russian Left, led by Vladimir Lenin, did not lose their heads, but led their country to the victory of socialist revolution. After 1917, for many years the Russian Left was the guiding star for the world Left.

The Russians paid heavily for their cutting edge achievement, while the European peoples became the main beneficiaries of the October Revolution. They’ve got all the Russians fought for, for free. Their leaders were afraid their workers would go over to the Communists; and thus the welfare state came into being.

Eventually, both branches of the Left forgot their history. The Western Left forgot their victories were due to the Red Army’s might, and they proudly preached the new-fangled theories of Euro-Communism. The Russians, always eager to learn a new trick, fell for it, and dismantled the socialist state, sincerely expecting they would live as good as Swedes. The end was gruesome: the Russians were plunged into long years of depopulation and de-industrialisation, while the flagship of the Western left, the huge Euro-Communist parties of France and Italy disappeared. Swedish socialism has almost perished.

Over the years, the Western Left virtually disappeared, and its place was taken by the pseudo-left, who appropriated the name of the historical Left parties. Capital raised in its secret labs this poisonous pseudo-Left, with one supreme goal in mind – to make the very name of communism obnoxious and repelling.

For the Bolsheviks, the Good Ones were workers, they were the salt of the earth. Everyone could join this class by identifying with workers. The Menshevik pseudo-left has offered a shortcut to join the Good Ones: Identity Politics. You are Good if you are discriminated against. If you are black, you suffer discrimination, even if you are an Obama. If you are a woman, you suffer discrimination. If you like BDSM, you are discriminated against. If you are a migrant, you are discriminated against. If you are a Jew, a Soros or a Rothschild, you are still suffer discrimination, for just half a century ago your grandfather was not allowed to join a country club.

For Bolsheviks, discrimination is not the most urgent problem. They are surely against discrimination; but it takes a backseat after the really important question: labour/capital relationship. When the working people win, discrimination will vanish, they say. By keeping the eye on this most important bottom line, the Bolsheviks are the greatest natural enemies of the 1%.

The cause of socialism was defeated in 1991, no doubt, but it is not the first defeat. In November 1941, when the German troops reached the outskirts of Moscow, it also appeared socialism had been defeated. However, in 1945 socialism rebounded. Since 1991, the winner, Capital, claims its victory is irrevocable and irreversible. It is, they say, the end of history.

But victories and defeats can be reversed. The Soviets did not know that. They believed that “the victory of socialism is inevitable because it is progressive.” Perhaps in the long run it is inevitable, but it can happen in a thousand years, and meanwhile a nuclear war or biological experiments can exterminate the human race.

The most basic ideals of French Republic – democracy, liberty, equality – were defeated by Napoleon, by the Bourbons, by Orleans, but they rebounded.

Nothing is inevitable. The Soviet Bolsheviks believed in inevitability – and lost; while their adversaries just fought hard, not giving an inch – and won. Their attitude should be emulated. The people of the West are ready for the real-Left turn. Recent successes of Jeremy Corbyn in England, of Bernie Sanders in the US, of Jean-Luc Mélenchon in France prove it. They are soft, but hard ones will come, too.

This is not the beginning of the end of the cruel man-eating neo-liberalism and its Menshevik allies, but this is the end of the beginning in the universal battle for socialism, as Churchill said of the British victory over the Germans at El Alamein. The light at the end of the tunnel is already visible. And then the Russian Communists will again become the beacon for the workers of the world.

Gru’s success can change a lot of things. His worldview has many points in common with Donald Trump. In a month’s time, we shall know how far this Russian Trump has succeeded in advancing.

Posted in USA, Russia0 Comments

Dangerous Delusions: Syria Isn’t Going to Liberate Palestine Anytime Soon nor Is Russia Turning Against “Israel”


A wave of hysteria has swept the Alt-Media Community following Syria’s downing of an “Israeli” jet, but for as much as people want to imagine that Damascus is on the cusp of liberating Palestine and that Moscow has turned against Tel Aviv, believing anything of the sort is nothing more than wishful thinking. 

Pop The Champagne!

Syria finally shot down an “Israeli” jet after what some sources have estimated was the Zionist entity’s more than 100th strike against the Arab Republic since 2011, and Damascus’ supporters all across the world are celebrating this powerful act of Resistance for putting Tel Aviv in its place.

This event was made all the more symbolic because Syria has been struggling against 7 years of multifaceted Hybrid War, showing the world that even the most conflict-weary state in the Mideast is capable of successfully standing up to the regional bully.

The resultant euphoria has begun to take on hysterical dimensions, however, with many Alt-Media commentators suggesting that Russia has taken Syria’s side in this conflict and that this automatically means that Damascus and its allies are on the cusp of liberating Palestine.

Nothing of the sort has happened and any “serious” talk about these long-awaited developments is delusional.

Sobering Up

Russia’s position has been deliberately ambiguous and corresponds with its new diplomatic-strategic position of attempting to achieve a “balance” between opposing parties in any given conflict.

Much ado has been made about President Putin’s plea to Netanyahu to avoid any escalation of the War on Syria, but this was to have been expected, just as it was predictable that people would see in this statement whatever they wanted to.

Instead of soberly recognizing that this is Russia’s standard response to any development that happens anywhere in the world, some people wrongly interpreted this as Putin chastising Netanyahu, with this narrative being reinforced because details about the presumed talks that he must have also had with his Syrian and Iranian counterparts haven’t been disclosed.

For reasons of strategic sensitivity in the framework of the Astana peace process, Russia is likely to refrain from any public criticism of Syria and Iran, and it’s very telling that the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MID) and the country’s Presidential Administration haven’t commented on the veracity of “Israel’s” claims that an Iranian drone flying over the occupied Golan Heights was what sparked the latest escalation.

The absence of commentary doesn’t indicate that Russia is dismissing “Israel’s” narrative, but to the contrary suggests that it is quietly accepting it as truth, though as was remarked above, is reluctant to say anything further about these claims in public because of its relationship to Syria and Iran in this sensitive context.

The Imaginary Russian-“Israeli” Split

Like the author wrote about last year, “Does Anyone Still Seriously Think That Russia And Israel Aren’t Allies?”, and any shocked readers should reference that piece for more background information into this admittedly provocative pronouncement if they aren’t already aware of how close these two sides really are.

Russia may feel uncomfortable about what “Israel” has just done in Syria, but it’s been passively facilitating such strikes for the past 2-5 years in an attempt to “balance” regional affairs per the “19th-Century Great Power Chessboard” paradigm, particularly as it relates to limiting Iran’s post-Daesh role in Syria.

Moscow’s silence every other time that this happened points to at least tacit approval of Tel Aviv’s actions or even clandestine coordination at times, because as the saying goes, “words are cheap”, and while it couldn’t have hurt Russia’s soft power to at least rhetorically condemn all of “Israel’s” previous bombings, Moscow still abstained from doing so.

The remains of the F-16 jet that crashed in northern Israel (Source: RTE)

What Russia didn’t expect, however, was that Syria would ever succeed in shooting down an “Israeli” jet, as it’s for Moscow’s aversion to this very same scenario that it has hitherto held off on selling top-notch anti-air missile systems to Damascus and has clearly reaffirmed on multiple occasions that its in-country military mandate does not include protecting Syria’s airspace from any foreign air force, whether American, “Israeli”, or Turkish.

This implies that Russia did not in fact provide Syria with the directive to shoot down the “Israeli” jet, nor would it have ever approved of such an action if it was previously informed, thus debunking the “populist” claims that Moscow gave the green light to Damascus to carry out this prominent act of self-defense.

Syrian Sovereignty And Its Limitations

Russia was probably informed of what happened immediately afterwards, but Syria as a sovereign state wouldn’t have sought its approval beforehand in any case, nor should it have.

Seeing as how this action prompted “Israel” to pummel Syria’s air defenses in response — an objective fact that’s “coincidentally” forgotten amidst the Alt-Media celebrations — it’s indeed true that the conflict between both parties has escalated, though that doesn’t mean that Syria’s response was unjustified or that Damascus is about to commence a liberation campaign in Palestine.

To address the first of the two, Syria has every right to defend its airspace from foreign intrusion no matter what the reason is for the external force’s territorial infringement (e.g. an Iranian drone venturing into the occupied Golan Heights), even if this sovereign decision “endangers” Russia’s “master plan” of “balancing” the Mideast.

As for the second point, there is no way that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is anywhere capable of freeing Palestine owing to “Israel’s” track record of responding with overwhelming force in the face of even the tiniest move in this direction, as was just evidenced by its large-scale bombing run against the country’s air defense systems after losing one of its jets.

“Allied” Disagreements

Having established the realistic limitations to what Syria can do against “Israel”, as well as explaining the nuances of Russia’s position in this matter, it’s now time to tackle the origin of this latest escalation and explain why it happened in the first place.

The Syrian state and its people were saved from impending destruction following Russia’s decisive anti-terrorist intervention in 2015, and while forever indebted to Moscow for what it did, Damascus doesn’t automatically have to comply with all of its partner’s “suggestions” for “politically” resolving the country’s conflict.

To be direct, Syria does not have to approve of the “decentralization” clauses controversially included in the 2017 Russian-written “draft constitution” for Syria out of the implied “guilt” that it “owes” Moscow something for saving it, considering that Russia’s mandate is specifically to fight terrorism and does not entitle it to lead the subsequent “peace process”.

That said, as the UNSC country with the most powerful influence over Damascus, it’s natural that Russia would take the lead in trying to kickstart the country’s stalled commitment to Resolution 2254’s mandate that it carry out “constitutional reform” and hold new elections, and this ambitious role is intended to deepen Moscow’s multipolar leadership in the Mideast following the vacuum that was created in the wake of Washington’s “Pivot to Asia”.

No matter the well-intended win-win motivations behind Russia’s stewardship of Syrian peace process, the “inconvenient fact” remains that the country’s government has been dragging its heels in this regard out of its implied unhappiness with Moscow’s “suggestions” and its unwillingness to commit to a “military solution” that would fulfill President Assad’s famous promise to liberate “every square inch” of Syria.

So as not to be misconstrued at this delicate moment of the analysis, the author is not hinting that there is a serious rift between the two wartime partners, but just that there nevertheless exist differences of vision — particularly over the end game — that are perfectly normal for any pair of friendly countries to have.

The Deir ez-Zor Disaster

The point to remember, however, is that Russia doesn’t have a “monopoly” on the Syrian peace process and that Iran is also crucially involved as well, and unlike Moscow, Tehran is in perfect alignment with Damascus’ preferred path forward in the war, no matter how unachievable it might be given the presence of approximately 2000 US troops and 10 American bases occupying the energy-rich and agriculturally wealthy northeastern third of the country.

Russia realized the impossibility of forcing the US out of Syria early on and that’s why it entered into a “gentlemen’s agreement” with it to informally recognize a so-called “deconfliction line” between these two Great Powers along the Euphrates River, but Syria and its Iranian ally don’t accept this deal and are intent on opposing it to the best of their abilities, just as they don’t like how Russia has passively allowed “Israel” to carve out a “buffer zone” near the occupied Golan Heights via its “rebel” proxies.

To this end, the SAA and their supported militias (which might have possibly included some kind of Iranian element as well) responded to Kurdish-led SDF provocations along the Russian-US “deconfliction zone” near Deir ez-Zor but were then decimated when the US promptly carried out a punitive strike against them, one which led to Russian condemnation but nothing else, whether before or after.

It’s possible that Syria was encouraged by Iran to respond to the Kurdish attacks despite what might have been Russia’s general orders to stand down under any such conditions while Moscow attempts to enter into a “deal-making” dialogue with Washington, and it’s Damascus’ refusal to follow this “protocol” that could have triggered the US to react with disproportionate force in seeking to “set an example”.

This version of events would also explain Russia’s lack of any substantial response before or after what happened.

Gambling In The Occupied Golan Heights

Should that have been the case, then Syria clearly didn’t heed the US’ “warning” because it soon thereafter might have been encouraged by Iran once more to defend itself from America’s “Israeli” ally in the southern part of the country against what could have either been yet another unprovoked attack (albeit one which Russia seems to always quietly agree with “Israel” is due to some sort of Iranian ‘tripwire’) or a drone ruse by Tehran in order to catalyze events.

It should be explained here that Iran, as a military actor invited into Syria at the request of the democratically elected and legitimate government, has every legal right to operate drones inside the country’s internationally recognized territory which thus includes the “Israeli”-occupied Golan Heights, so there’s no reason in principle to deny that it flew a drone over that part of the state if that’s what truly happened (and which Russia hasn’t openly denied).

Nevertheless, international law and international reality are two different things, and the facts on the ground are such that “Israel” has unilaterally and illegally annexed the Golan Heights, so flying an Iranian drone over them would indeed incite a military response no matter how illegal it may be.

Iran might have wanted to set a trap for its hated Zionist enemy, especially if it had just secretly improved Syria’s air defense capabilities, and this might have been something that Syria would have voluntarily gone alone with in earnest owing to the identical policy that it shares with Tehran when it comes to “Israel”.

The “Resistance’s” Strategy Towards Russia

It’s important to mention that Syria and Iran are “Resistance” states and therefore prioritize ideals and what they sincerely believe to be the “right thing” over realpolitik, international reality, and the power-centric paradigm of Neo-Realism that the vast majority of the world operates under per the “19th-Century Great Power Chessboard”, which is why these two countries are predisposed to doing the seemingly “inexplicable” in challenging the US and “Israel” when not even Russia dares to confront them in the region (choosing instead to seek out “pragmatic” “balancing” deals with mixed “success”).

It’s precisely because of Russia’s “Machiavellian” position and the dissatisfaction that Syria and Iran have towards it that they have an incentive to challenge Moscow’s grand strategy whenever it conflicts with their “Resistance” principles, as it may have done in Deir ez-Zor and the occupied Golan Heights over the past week.

Neither of these two Russian partners want to “betray” Moscow or even “undermine” its regional position, but actually want to “help” it realize its “full potential” by engineering situations where Russia is compelled to “choose” between the “Resistance” and its sworn enemies, genuinely believing that all that it might take to get Moscow to abandon its newfound “balancing” strategy and pivotally become a partisan player like it used to be during the Old Cold War is to “gently” give it a “push” in the “right direction” through the Deir ez-Zor and occupied Golan Heights defensive escalations.

The problem is that Russia doesn’t perceive of the recent events in this manner, and instead of smiling upon Syria and Iran’s strategic “ingenuity” in masterminding these “clever” pivot-inciting “opportunities”, Moscow is more inclined to believe that Tehran is “exploiting” Damascus’ irritation at Russia’s leadership of the “peace process” and attendant “balancing”-directed “suggestions” at “decentralization” in order to utilize it as a “cat’s paw” for drawing the US and “Israel” into a standoff with Russia, one which the Islamic Republic might be gambling could work out to the “Resistance’s” benefit.

Fatal Miscalculation

Such a “wishful-thinking” assumption would be a terrible mistake because Russia isn’t going to risk a war with either of the “Resistance’s” above-mentioned adversaries because Eurasia’s consummate Neo-Realist state “knows better” than to “fall for” this “idealistic” “trap”.

If it comes down to it, which it very well might, Russia can “reconcile” itself with the “federalized” fragmentation of the Arab Republic into “spheres of influence” in order to advance its “balancing” vision and could even accept the removal of President Assad so long as it’s “orderly” and doesn’t replicate the terrorist-producing Libyan scenario (ergo Moscow’s repeated assertions that his political fate wasn’t the reason why it launched its military intervention), so the “Resistance” could ultimately be shocked to find out that Moscow might not rush to its “rescue” if it keeps “playing with fire” when it comes to what might have been Russia’s clandestine “gentlemen’s agreements” with the US and “Israel” in Syria.

To conclude by bringing everything full circle and back to the lead-in news event that inspired this analysis, Syria’s downing of the “Israeli” jet filled the “Resistance”-friendly Alt-Media Community with hope that Palestine might soon be liberated after what they’ve largely convinced themselves was Russia’s “chastisement” of “Israel”, but such wishful thinking is actually nothing more than a dangerous delusion that might horrifyingly see this celebratory occasion lead to Syria’s total destruction because of what might come to be the “Resistance’s” fatal miscalculation about Russia.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Russia, Syria0 Comments

Downed Russian Warplane Illustrates Enduring Danger of US-Backed Terrorism


A Russian ground-attack aircraft – a Sukhoi-25 – was shot down using an anti-aircraft missile over the northern Syrian province of Idlib by Al Qaeda affiliates. The pilot was reportedly killed by militants according to the Russian Ministry of Defense.

The BBC in its article, “Russian jet shot down in Syria’s Idlib province,” would report:

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham – formerly linked to al-Qaeda – said it had shot down the plane.

In a statement released on social media, the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group claimed it had shot down the plane using a shoulder-launched surface-to-air missile.

The BBC and other Western media organizations have worked ceaselessly to aid groups like “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham” in their efforts to re-brand themselves and obfuscate public awareness over their status as terrorist organizations, thus making it easier for either the US and its European allies to aid and arm such groups, or for Western allies in the Middle East to aid and arm them.

That “Tahrir al-Sham” possesses anti-aircraft missiles indicates they are the recipients of state-sponsored arms deliveries. The fact that they murdered the downed pilot – a war crime – reaffirms their status as a terrorist organization.

Al Qaeda affiliates possessing anti-aircraft weapon systems should come as no surprise. The US had literally handed hundreds of anti-aircraft missiles to militants in Afghanistan during the 1980’s which included Arab volunteers assisted by Al Qaeda. With these missiles, militants likewise downed Russia warplanes and helicopters.

Arming Al Qaeda in Syria was ‘Plan A’ Before the Arab Spring “Sprung”

The Washington Post in its article, “Russia strikes back as Syrian rebels take credit for shooting down fighter jet, killing pilot,” regarding allegations that that the United States was responsible for Al Qaeda possessing anti-aircraft weapons used to down Russian aircraft would report:

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said any allegation that the United States has provided MANPAD missiles in Syria was untrue, and she denied that U.S. equipment was used in shooting down the Russian plane.

“The United States has never provided MANPAD missiles to any group in Syria, and we are deeply concerned that such weapons are being used,” she said.

Yet an examination of the Syrian conflict’s true inception reveals just how dubious this denial by the US State Department really is.

The Syrian conflict was conceived years before the first protesters took to the streets during the 2011 so-called “Arab Spring.”

US policymakers had been preparing since as early as 2007 to wage proxy war on Syria and Iran. To do so they built upon a history of collaboration with Saudi Arabia and other notorious state-sponsors of terrorism – which includes the joint US-Saudi-Pakistani support provided to militants including Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan during the 1980s to expel Soviet forces. This support included shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” provided a prophetic warning of the dangerous expansion of this state-sponsored terrorism. Hersh warned (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Hersh revealed that even then the US was using its Saudi allies to launder money and material support to opposition fronts:

Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said.

In addition to the US State Department organizing political agitators that would flood the streets of nations like Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Yemen at the onset of the “Arab Spring,” the US government and its regional allies began staging weapons and training and mobilizing militants, aimed at preparing armed groups to quickly leverage street mobs to expand and exploit the engineered conflicts.

The US Transformed Al Qaeda from a Terrorist Organization into a Standing Army 

By 2013, headlines in newspapers like the New York Times in its article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.,” exposed the full-scale proxy war – warned of by journalists like Hersh – the US was now waging on the Syrian state. The NYT would report (emphasis added):

With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders. 

The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.

While the NYT and other Western media organizations attempted to claim US involvement in the weapon deliveries sought to prevent Arab donors from sending weapons like anti-aircraft missiles – the US used the CIA to covertly facilitate the weapon deliveries precisely because Washington’s Arab allies could send weapons the US openly could not, to groups the US could not afford to be seen directly supporting.

In other words, the CIA aided Arab allies in arming terrorists with a wide array of weapons, including anti-aircraft missiles, specifically because the US could not directly do so itself.

And while the US attempts to revise recent history, claiming that Al Qaeda and its affiliates have only just now come to prominence after “moderate rebels” were eliminated from the battlefield over the course of the now seven year conflict, in 2012 Western media already admitted the prominent role Al Qaeda’s “Al Nusra Front” played in leading the opposition.

The 2012 NYT article, “Syrian Rebels Tied to Al Qaeda Play Key Role in War,” admitted (emphasis added):

The lone Syrian rebel group with an explicit stamp of approval from Al Qaeda has become one of the uprising’s most effective fighting forces, posing a stark challenge to the United States and other countries that want to support the rebels but not Islamic extremists. 

Money flows to the group, the Nusra Front, from like-minded donors abroad. Its fighters, a small minority of the rebels, have the boldness and skill to storm fortified positions and lead other battalions to capture military bases and oil fields. As their successes mount, they gather more weapons and attract more fighters.

Those “like-minded donors abroad” include the very Arab allies the CIA aided in delivering weapons to militants in Syria – namely Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

It is neither without precedent nor plausibility then that the US is the prime suspect in arming – either directly or indirectly – the terrorists who recently downed a Russian warplane admittedly operating in and attacking territory held by Al Qaeda in Syria.

The US has already in recent history admittedly armed militants with anti-aircraft missiles to down Russia aircraft in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It was a point of US policy since 2007 to not only aid and arm Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Washington’s proxy war with Iran and its Syrian allies, but to do so through intermediaries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Jordan, and Israel – as revealed by Hersh in his 2007 New Yorker article.

And it is demonstrated daily on the battlefields of Syria, despite claims that the billions the US has invested in “moderate rebels,” no such “moderates” exist. Claims that they were “displaced” by Al Qaeda begs the question – if the US invested billions in “moderate rebels,” who invested billions more in Al Qaeda giving them the operational edge to displace the “moderate rebels” from the battlefield?  The answer is simple – there were never any “moderate rebels.”

The US – as it did in Afghanistan – simply armed whatever militants were willing to fight – including, and now especially Al Qaeda and its affiliates. Al Qaeda’s possession of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, as well as armored vehicles and even tanks illustrates how the US in its supposed “War on Terror” managed to transform a decentralized terrorist organization into a standing army now possessing entire cities and even provinces only Damascus and its Russian and Iranian allies appear interested in fighting and eliminating.

US-backed terrorism has recently claimed a Russian pilot, amid a war that has cost tens of thousands their lives over the course of several years and threatened the stability of an entire region. But long after the war ends, whenever it ends, this threat as a result of America’s state-sponsorship of terrorism will endure for many more years to come, manifesting itself not only on battlefields but also in cities and towns, targeting soldiers and civilians alike – not just in Syria but around the planet.

Posted in Russia, Syria0 Comments

Moscow Concerned With Escalation of Tensions as ‘Israel’ Attacks Syria


The Russian Foreign Ministry has called to respect Syria’s sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the countries in the Middle East following the aerial attacks of Nazi Occupation Forces against the targets in central Syria.

“Moscow is deeply concerned with the latest developments and attacks on Syria. The danger of the escalation of tensions within and around the de-escalation zones, which has become an important factor in reducing violence in Syria is of particular concern,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement posted on its website.

The statement reads that the Syrian government forces “are complying with the existing arrangements to provide the consistent functioning of the de-escalation zone in the south-west of the country.”

“We urge all the involved parties to exercise restraint and avoid any steps that could lead to aggravation of the situation. We consider it necessary to unconditionally respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria and other countries of the region.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Russia, Syria0 Comments

Cry Some More


After a US spy plane was intercepted over the Black Sea by a Russian fighter jet, the US Navy released a whole series of videos depicting the incident from different angles, and complaining that the interaction was apparently “unsafe”.

The videos released by the US military show how a Russian Sukoi Su-27 supermaneuverable fighter jet intercepts a US EP-3 Aries signal intelligence (SIGINT) plane flying over the Black Sea, with the distance between the two planes at times apparently being no more than five feet.

The Russian Ministry of Defense replied that the intercept was carried out in order to prevent the Aries from violating Russian airspace and added that the Pentagon may want “to issue new maps with correct Russian airspace borders to all the crews.”

Posted in USA, Russia0 Comments

The Truth Behind the US Meeting Between Russian Intel and “Fixer” Pompeo

This was an unprecedented visit

…from  Press TV, Tehran

Update: We have been getting denial of service attacks on the website starting a few minutes after Gordon’s note went up. Probably just a coincidence 🙂 . Keep us posted in the comments what you are experiencing… Thanks, JD

FSB chief, Sergei Naryshkin

Senior Editor’s note:  There are two subjects of discussion.  Top among them is eliminating anyone who can testify as to the two dossiers, both of which could be independently confirmed.  Trump was burned in Moscow and is a “KGB Mole.”

We know Mike Flynn was burned in Moscow and Trump knew it.  We believe Russia asked Trump to appoint Flynn.  He was burned in 2015 at an RT dinner and afterward, his son in attendance along with friends of ours, fellow journalists and diplomats in Russia.

They described his performance, his ranting against America in particular and his hand out asking for cash.  He took $55k and asked for much more.  We suspect he was promised the moon.  The FSB believed they owned Flynn and could use him to steer Trump who they believe is unstable and unfocused.

I was subjected to an FBI interview as part of this investigation.  It was my impression they were simply doing their job.

Now it comes down to where we are now, with Russia and the US at odds.  Did Russia meet with Donald Jr., Manfort, Page and others about rigging the US election.  The evidence is in and admissions made and a Flynn plea.  The charges might well have been much more serious.

What we are looking today is Naryshkin and Pompeo meeting.  Pompeo is hardly a CIA director, he is a minor DC thug and public relations guy.  He is hugely out of his depth as is so often the case with CIA directors.  Assume the CIA isn’t American at all, not since Reagan anyway, and you begin to understand.

The second issue, the one we promised, is this.  They, Pompeo for Trump and Naryshkin and “getting their stories straight.”  Putin is a master spy.  He would have never, by my estimation, authorized anyone to meet with a pack of greedy morons to rig an American election but it seems it happened anyway.

Evidence indicates that Trump knowingly had operatives meet with a foreign intelligence agency to rig an American election.  He would do it, we all know it, he has no sense.  Those around him are idiots as well, gangsters and fools.  They did it, they are guilty, this is treason, a constitutional crisis, and they have to be arrested and imprisoned or the whole charade of our pretend government will unravel.

What some of us also see is the hand of Putin’s enemies, the Turkish and Russian/Khazar “oligarchs,” read “mob bosses” that have been behind Trump since 1982 when Roy Cohn, real mob boss and Trump mentor, introduced him around as an “idiot on the make” for helping launder drug cash.

Less than a decade later, the Soviet Union was kaput, the Soviet prison emptied and the worst of them heading to the US, coffers loaded with cash from the Soviet Commercial Banks of Belarus, Ukraine and Leningrad.  This was a CIA operation begun in Poland in 1990, breaking into the KGB by smuggling American cigarettes.  After that Soviet bankers were invited to the US and burned.

A deal to loot the Soviet Union was set up with help of Senator’s Kennedy and Sarbanes, banking capabilities created, and Trump was one of the outlets for an initial tranch of $320m of stolen cash.   The meeting was at the Pierre setting it up.  Guess who sat next to Senator Sarbanes at that meeting?

How it began, getting rid of the Soviet Union, was the holy grail of the CIA for decades.  That it was done with political hacks and has backfired with them taking over us is in reality “high humor.”

But is it Russia or is it Russian born criminals who represent not Israel but a massive crime syndicate that blends right in with Wall Street, the oil and defense companies and Sheldon Adelson’s Israeli congress?

Are you getting the picture?  We began with next to no American government at all after two rigged Bush 43 elections.  If Russia really took over, if Putin was really running America, things would start working better.

Instead, Trump is burning America down while the 1% is being handed the keys.  No, our oversimplistic views of who is what don’t fit.  Our hope here, and listen carefully, is if John Kerry steps in.  This seems to be the plan and Kerry is just dirty enough that congress loves him. Byden does not have the gravitas.


[ Editor’s Note: This was quite a curve ball here, having a small parade of top Russian Intel people flying to Washington to pow wow with the CIA. Even Congress wanting to know what was going on, is limited from doing so, as it is a sieve when it comes to leaks.

What they could have been discussing is anyone’s guess as there would be so much to talk about, including the possibility of laying out that if the US continued sanctioning Russian government officials, Moscow would have to start releasing its treasure trove of US “interfering in elections” all over the world.

Insiders know that is one of the CIA’s main jobs, and all the Congressional old timers know it, too. None of this would ever be admitted to, of course. But when Trump converted his new list of sanctions targets into a “potential list” as a “deterrent”, that was a strong hint that some rethinking might have gone on.

Putin had already publicly signaled that there would be a strong response to new sanctions, and quickly. This which was quite a break from the past where Moscow has always carefully weighed the pros and cons of taking reciprocal action, showing concern of not wanting to get into a spiraling down of relations via an endless cycle of sanctions and counter sanctions.

Pompeo brushed off any claims of the Russians having the US over a barrel,  “while Russia remains an adversary, we would put American lives at greater risk if we ignored opportunities to work with the Russian services in the fight against terrorism.”

And we must not forget that the US supplied Russian Intel with the material to breakup the St. Petersburg attack, for which Putin was quick to say thank you. Pompeo also stated that neither side was ever shy about discussing its difficulties with the other.

We will have to wait for some leaks to appear (unlikely) to know more, and then have to weigh whether they are fake or real leaks, another part of the game … Jim W. Dean ]

– First published … February 02, 2018 –

The heads of three Russian intelligence agencies traveled to the United States to meet with CIA Director Mike Pompeo, amid a series of political rifts between the two sides over US President Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russian officials and Washington’s renewal of sanctions against Moscow.

The Russian embassy in the US confirmed Tuesday that Sergei Naryshkin, head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (FIS), was in the US to discuss the fight on terrorism with Pompeo.

CIA director Mike Pompeo

It has now been revealed in a report by The Washington Post that accompanying Naryshkin during the trip were two other chiefs — Alexander Bortnikov, director of the Federal Security Service (FSB), and Colonel General Igor Korobov, chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU).

According to the Post, Bortnikov also met with the CIA chief but it was not clear which American officials Korobov had met with.

A senior US intelligence official in Moscow also headed back to Washington to partake in the meetings, an unnamed US government source familiar with the matter told the paper.

The encounters raised concern among some US politicians, who interpreted them as signs of the Trump administration’s willingness to work with Moscow despite concerns at home about the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s alleged interference in the 2016 US presidential election.

While the meetings between Russian and American spymasters are not unheard of, current and former US officials told the Post that this particular trip by so many heads of Russian intelligence agencies was unprecedented.

Pompeo defends meeting

After facing heavy criticism from Democrats, specially Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer who said “there was something untoward” in the meetings, Pompeo said Thursday that the meetings were nothing out of the ordinary.

“While Russia remains an adversary, we would put American lives at greater risk if we ignored opportunities to work with the Russian services in the fight against terrorism,” Pompeo said. “We cover very difficult subjects in which American and Russian interests do not align,” he added.

Schumer had specifically asked for more details about Naryshkin, who is on Washington’s sanctions list, and that whether the trip had anything to do with the Trump administration’s refusal this week to impose new sanctions against Russia.

The Trump White House had until Monday to implement a sanctions bill against Moscow but instead informed lawmakers that the legislation, which was passed last year, was already “serving as a deterrent.”

The trip also came days before Washington released a list of 114 Russian politicians and 96 “oligarchs” close to the Kremlin upon a request by Congress. Bortnikov is among the sanctioned senior Russian officials.

US media did not rule out a possible connection between the meeting and Washington’s decision to shelve the sanctions bill for the near future.

Posted in USA, Russia0 Comments

US Coalition attempts to trash Sochi talks crash and burn


…from Press TV, Tehran

The Saudi HNC rump group has failed to derail the political talks

[ Editor’s Note: The UN’s Guterres just pulled the rug out from under the whining claims that the Sochi talks were some kind of a rouge operation to knock the UN talks out of the box.

The claims were a complete hoax, first because Moscow was coordinating Sochi with the UN, publicly stating they were no attempt so replace the UN.

Because the UN talks had been bogged down by the Saudi High Negotiation Committee’s (HNC) efforts to keep the talks going nowhere by constantly demanding pre-conditions which the UN said were improper for anyone participating, Sochi was designed to get around that roadblock.

The opposition’s strategy can clearly be seen as an attempt to stall the political talks to give the US coalition time to crank up some new chaos in Syria to have them die of crib death. But it seems that the Erodgan invasion is one finger of that ploy.

The whole purpose of Sochi was not to solve all the problems, but get the process jump started and quite visibly so. The concluding twelve point statement was a home run in that regard, and the cherry on top was to move the next step in the process back to Geneva where De-Mistura would have the final say on some of the key items.

All this can in no way be claimed as excluding the UN from the process, which is exactly what the hard core opposition did. And the 1600 participants established a large and diverse representation of those wanting to mover forward.

It was also a show of force against the small group of deal killers like the HNC, that the majority would not be held hostage to their demands.

As I have editorialized, the critical focus now for a successful resolution to the Syrian crisis is to maintain momentum with the political process. The US Coalition obviously knows this so it is doing all it can to disrupt it. As Gordon does so love to say, “Welcome to how the world really works” … Jim W. Dean ]

The Sochi talks did what was needed, agree to a platform to move forward with more talks in Geneva. Maintaining momentum is the key to a political solution

– First published … February 03, 2018 –

United Nations (UN) Secretary General Antonio Guterres has rejected criticism of the world body’s participation at Syrian peace talks in the Russian resort city of Sochi, praising the outcome of the discussions.

Speaking at a press conference at the UN headquarters New York on Friday, Guterres said the presence of UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura “in Sochi was based on a common understanding between the United Nations and the Russian Federation on the nature and outcome of the meeting and its contribution to the [UN-mediated] Geneva process.”

“The congress concluded with a statement fully in line with that common understanding,” he added.

Russia, Iran, and Turkey have been organizing peace talks for Syria in the Kazakh capital of Astana since January 2017. Together, the three countries have been acting as guarantor states for the peace process.

Capitalizing on the achievements of Astana, Russia on January 29-30 convened a high-profile meeting on Syria — the Syrian Congress of National Dialog — in Sochi.

One Syrian opposition faction boycotted that meeting, and some non-political groups opposed to Damascus later accused the UN of “rewarding” Russia “upfront” by dispatching Special Envoy de Mistura to the event before securing concessions from Russia and the Syrian government.

Russia and Iran are Syrian government allies. Turkey is an ally of the Syrian opposition. The collective efforts of the three countries, including the brokering of agreements that have significantly reduced fighting in Syria, have made an impact on the ground in the Arab country.

In contrast, a peace process held under the auspices of the UN — that in Geneva — has achieved little. That has angered some Western and Arab governments opposed to the Syrian government and some groups of Syrian opposition backed by those governments. They insist that the Geneva process be given more importance despite its failure so far to make meaningful achievements.

Guterres appreciated Russia’s engagement with the UN regarding the Syria talks. He highlighted the key subjects of the 12-point final Sochi statement, saying that the document embraced a vision of Syria for all its citizens and underlined the need for the formation of a Constitutional Committee under UN auspices.

Around 1,600 delegates representing a wide range of Syrian political factions attended the Sochi talks. The event was boycotted by the High Negotiations Committee, which is based in and guided by Saudi Arabia.

Damascus welcomed the results of the event and stressed that its final statement affirmed that political progress in Syria cannot begin except under the Syrian leadership and without any foreign interference.

The Sochi conference took place just days after the ninth round of UN-led Syria talks failed to achieve tangible results. That round was exceptionally held in the Austrian capital, Vienna, instead of its usual venue of Geneva.

Posted in USA, Russia, Syria0 Comments

Shoah’s pages


February 2018
« Jan